Responding to a Radiological Crisis: Experiences of British Foreign Office Staff in Japan After the Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify factors that affected well-being among British embassy staff based in Japan after the 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 36 members of staff 8 to 9 months after the earthquake. RESULTS: Participants described their crisis work as stressful, exciting, and something of which they were proud. Aside from disaster-specific stressors, factors identified as stressful included unclear roles, handing over work to new personnel, being assigned to office-based work, feeling that work was not immediately beneficial to the public, not taking good-quality breaks, and difficulties with relatives. The radiation risk provoked mixed feelings, with most participants being reassured by contact with senior scientists. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to safeguard the well-being of personnel during crisis work must consider the impact of a broad range of stressors.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;0:1-7).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".